CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 septembre 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 16 September 2019   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 45475/18 M.D. against Latvia lodged on 18 September 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s continued pre-trial detention. He has been detained since 28 February 2018 and after carrying out the reviews on 5 September 2018, 6 November 2018 and 7 January 2019 the investigating judge of Riga City Pārdaugava Court ordered that the applicant’s detention be continued. The applicant alleges that the pre-trial detention has been unlawful and that the judicial decisions lacked sufficient reasoning for its continuation. In addition the investigating judge allegedly breached the principle of presumption of innocence by stating that the applicant had committed the offences he was accused of and by referring to other ongoing criminal proceedings in which his guilt had not been determined. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s deprivation of liberty in breach of Article 5 §§ 1 (c) and 3 of the Convention?   In particular, having regard to the Court’s case-law ( Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC], no. 23755/07, 5 July 2016, and Urtāns v. Latvia , no.   16858/11, 28 October 2014) did the domestic courts assess the reasonableness of the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences he has been charged with and did the domestic courts provide relevant and sufficient reasons in the decisions of 5 September 2018, 6   November 2018 and 7 January 2019 justifying the applicant’s continued detention?   2.     Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case by the investigating judge of Riga City Pārdaugava Court?   2.1.     In particular, was the applicant’s presumption of innocence breached by the wording used by the investigating judge when addressing the gravity of the offence in the decisions of 5 September 2018 and 7   January 2019 (for example, “the nature of the crime committed”, “he has harmed the interests of society”, “his actions are directed at the sexual inviolability of a minor” and other) ( Matijašević v. Serbia , no. 23037/04, ECHR 2006 ‑ X)?   2.2.     Was the applicant’s presumption of innocence breached when the investigating judge in the decisions of 5 September 2018, 6 November 2018 and 7 January 2019 referred to other ongoing criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant as a ground for continuing his pre-trial detention ( Perica Oreb v. Croatia , no. 20824/09, 31 October 2013)?